April 22, 2008

2. There's a lot of jockeying over a number: The percentage points by which Hillary must win to justify the continuation of her campaign. Is it 10? Is it 5? Let's set the number in advance. Or do you think she should just go on until all the primaries are over, now that she's come this far?

3. The polls close and CNN pronounces the race "very competitive." They can't call it. That seems bad for Hillary... but I don't trust CNN. If they declared her the winner, the audience would abscond.

4. Wolf Blitzer at 8:00: "We cannot project a winner based on the exit polls alone. We're going to have to wait and see hard numbers coming up." Hmmm. So they have their exit polls, but they want to coordinate with the news of the actual ballot counts. What does that mean ... other than CNN wants you to watch CNN?

6. "Um." Long, long pause. "You must never start to stop. Having said that, this is the biggest show and biggest platform that, no matter what, you're strong enough, and you're great enough... to pick up the pieces." Wolf Blitzer to Hillary Clinton. No! Paula Abdul to Brooke White.

7. David Gergen on what the superdelegates are thinking: "This is not just a question of who can win in the fall. They have to also make sure they held their party together. If at the end of this, the math is against her, she winds up with fewer delegates, fewer votes, and fewer states, if they turn it over to her, they run the very real risk they will drive African Americans out of the party for a generation. And they will drive away young voters. There're some things worse than losing an election in trying to build a party."

9. Obama speaks. He's in Indiana, and he thanks John Mellencamp and "his beautiful wife" for driving to Evansville from (I think) Bloomington. Very Indiana-y. He seems to be giving his stump speech. Or maybe I'm just tired.... Good night, everybody.

10. (Written the morning after.) You've got the comments up beyond 200, which means you can't see the newest comments unless you click on "post a comment" and then "newer" or "newest," so why not move on to the post I just put up.

229 comments:

Prediction: 54-46. She stays in until last primary. At this point, what's another 6 weeks. Plus, she's got to pay off her campaign debts. As long as there are no more debates -- they give me tired head.

I think for that fall, each side ought to come up with their 10 best one-liners and label them 1 through 10. Then, when McCain is asked "What would you do about the budget?" he could just say "Three" which might stand for "I am fiscally responsible and my opponent is a classic tax and spender." Obama could reply "Seven" which stands for "People are hurting, homes are being lost, and if goverment is to have any purpose or meaning, then it must protect the vulnerable in our society, and those who have made millions in during the Bush years must pay their fair share."

It would be just as meaningful a debate using numbered arguments than using the arguments themselves. Also, the debate would be only 10 minutes long, which would be nice.

She has a right to run as long as she wants to, but I don't see much point in her continuing. She won't win the nomination, and all she is doing is creating a lot of animosity that would prevent her from running in four years should Obama lose, or eight if he wins.

Her strategic mistake was taking Democratic voters for granted and just assuming she'd win the nomination without having to really work for it, and her tactical mistake (which sprang from her strategic mistake) was to pretty much ignore any state with less than 20 electoral votes that was scheduled to vote after Super Tuesday, allowing Obama's organization to pretty much have free run in midsized states like Virginia, Maryland, Washington and Wisconsin until the last minute and also a lot of smaller states, which is where he built his delegate margin.

Frankly the first real test you get of a candidate's ability to lead is how well they manage their campaign, and Hillary failed utterly in that department.

I like Blue Moon's suggestion with one modification. The questions should be numbered, too. So, the debate would go like this: 1, 4, 17; 14, 3, 29; 9, 11, 0-declined to respond, etc. Only with an outlier question or answer would there be any delays.

Though I am not a fan of the Wicked Witch of the East, she has earned the right to stay in. She would probably be the worst president since Carter if she beats McCain.

She is just as qualified or unqualified as Obama; neither has any real public policy accomplsihments to their name. In Hillary's case, it is even worse, as she has lied continually abput her so called thirty five years of public service. She has earned the right to see things out to the finish.

It will be interesting to see if what people were claiming early in the campaign is true; she and Bill had sewn up enough super delegates in advance to guarantee her nomination.

If her seeing things through the end destroys the Democratic party, so be it. Both parties are broken, out of touch not only with the people, but reality, and need a thorough over haul.

I would love to see her go down in defeat and humiliation at the convention. Will she cry? Will Ole Uncle Festus point his finger and put both feet in his mouth? Will they slink off to their estate in New York and find a way to sabotage who ever wins in November?

I think a lot will depend on what the exit polls say. It all depends on whether the election results confirm that Obama is unelectable in a general (meaning Obama cant carry the white working class vote). If Hillary only wins by 5 points but it appears that the margin is only that low because of high turnout in black precincts, then that will be the same as Hillary winning by 15 points.

If Obama loses the white working class vote badly, the double standard will rear its ugly head. Meaning that if Obama were white, Hillary would be very much in the race because the super delegates wouldn't have to worry about upsetting african americans.

I think anything up to 15 points is NOT a blowout. She should win by that amount at least if she wants to make a case, since she was up by as much as 20 points and Obama is looking all weird what with a kitchen sink atop his head.

However, she will spin anything in double digits as a huge win and keep going. While it won't affect the final outcome, she should have the right to continue if she likes.

I just feel like Obama probably has a lot of money and people on the ground so 8% would seem about right.

The problem with Blue Moon's suggestion is that while we've heard Hillary and Obama debate ad nauseum, few people know much about McCain's positions on some key issues.

(example: by now pretty much everyone knows that Hillary's health plan is to require that everyone buy coverage, similar to the Massachussetts plan. Obama's plan is to require that children be covered but leave it optional for adults, and both require that insurance companies create a 'national pool' in order to cap premiums so people can afford insurance even if they are cancer survivors or have other medical conditions. But how many people know what John McCain's health care plan is? I do, but only because I've taken the time to look it up and read it on his website-- and it would be as much of a change from the current system as either Hillary's or Obama's, but in the opposite direction.)

Given that McCain wants to stay in Iraq for a long time, I'd like to ask him point blank whether he supports continuing to borrow hundreds of billions of dollars to pay for it as we are now, or if he has another plan to pay for it.

Speaking of the Middle East, do we continue to unconditionally support unpopular monarchies such as those in Saudi Arabia, Dubai and Kuwait, or do we push those countries to make democratic reforms? How important relatively speaking are our commitment to democracy vs. our need for oil?

None of the three candidates have really talked much about Social Security yet. I'd like to see more about what they plan to do to make the system solvent.

All three of them have said following Carter's visit that they won't meet with Hamas. Fine, and I agree with that. But I'd like to know what their plans are for handling peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians given the fact that Hamas does control Gaza.

In the battle in the west (and more and more elsewhere as well) over water, how would they prioritize the competing demands of urban areas, agriculture and environmental concerns?

In signing future trade deals, should we tie them to environmtal, labor and anti-corruption standards, and if so how?

Are they prepared to confront China over supporting human rights abuses both at home and abroad, and if so how? Will trade be a part of any strategy to pressure China?

There are plenty of issues I haven't heard enough on, and certainly not from McCain (who hasn't even been in a debate since January.)

She needs to win, obviously, but any margin down to and including one vote will suffice. Lookit, the bottom line is that those in the Obama camp are going to wail and demand she quit the race no matter what happens. If she won unanimously the Obama camp would say she should pull out of the race. If nothing she does will shut them up, it seems to me, anything other than a loss justifies continuing.

Addenda: obviously it's implicit in my comment that she should stay in because - pace Eli - there's every chance that she can go on to win the nomination as long as she wins today and keeps winning down the line.

There is no way she can win the nomination Simon. You would have to assume the superdelegates would give it to her, and that won't happen without certain mathematical impossibilities (her someow leading in popular vote, voted delegates, state count).

And if they handed it to her, again 'cause Simon says, she would have to overcome a huge loss in black turnout, and a huge loss in new voters brought in by Obama.

So if Obama wins and another ten million get insurance (assuming that is how many uninsured kids there are), will the press and the Dems stop wringing their hands about the millions without insurance? There would then be about 35 million without.

She should run right up to the end and if she doesn't get it, and isn't awarded VP on Obama's ticket, she should start a third party, and run on that. She might well still win.

Most importantly, it would split the Democratic vote, and allow McCain to win, so we could have someone sensible for president (I just hope he doesn't blow up the whole world in a fit of pique).

She could still be the Grinch that stole the Democrats' Christmas!

I'm not enamored of McCain (I wanted Brownback) but he's the lesser of two evils. At least he won't make us look like sheep in Iraq, and he may even enforce the rule of law in regard to "illegal" aliens.

Nothing makes any sense as it is, and the Democratic top contenders just don't seem to want to clarify any terms. Obama is running on a jingle that might as well read, "The Audacity of Vagueness," and she's running on a counter-jingle that goes, "It Takes a Whole Village of Vagueries."

They might as well continue to run against one another, since neither one is getting anywhere in terms of the clarification of any of their ideas or ideals or terms. They're just standing in the same place, going nowhere, pretending it's a race. I can't find a single principle that either one of them would fight for.

Then the question is-- how big does Obama need to win NC in order to pressure her out? I think if he wins NC by less than 5, suddenly (gasp, Garage mahal) I think she has a viable argument to the Superdelegates.

I think he's gotta beat her in NC basically by the same margin she beats him in PA.

Eli:

In a world where we were not more interested in "character" than policy, I would agree. But there is not enough time in three debates to discuss all of that in a meaningful way, and we are a soundbite society anyway, so any "meaningful" debate is going to disintegate into "100 year war" vs. "Surrender to Osama" or "Millions without healthcare" vs. "Socialized medicine."

I don't think we get to choose. We only get to choose from the candidates, not the candidates themselves.

Hillary, old pal, if you are reading this: I don't really like you, and I probably would never vote for you, but you should run for president until you decide to stop. This is the United States of America.

It's interesting that the Democrats have painted themselves into a corner. If Hillary appears to have the ability to get the votes of white working class voters and seems be able to win in the national election those states with many electoral votes, the super delegates would (in a rational world) swing her way so they can win the Presidency.

BUT, because they have played identity politics for so long (class warfare, blacks against whites, women, affirmative actions etc) Because they have held the carrot just beyond the reach of their captive black voting public, they can't just pull it away when it seems to be just in reach without starting a revolution.

Finally, a "black" man has a chance to be elected or finally a "woman" has a chance. By being rational and picking one identity over the other so they can win, they are guaranteed to piss off at least one faction of their party.

The only way would be for Clinton to win and select Obama as her vice president and then for Obama to give a big speech as to why this is a good idea and why black voters should vote for the Clinton-Obama ticket.

"If you are a superdelegate and that is your criteria, you would go with Obama without question."

Even if it meant that you would not be able to gather enough electoral votes to win the election and you knew it? Seriously? You think that they would rather lose the election than piss off their black voters?I'm not being snarky. I'm trying to understand that mentality.

Somehow I don't see the Democrat leadership and party movers and shakers being that altruistic to purposely lose so that they won't have social unrest if/when the blacks revolt(metaphorically and literally) if they think that Obama was "done wrong" by the white guys.

I also don't see a combined Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama ticket being something workable after all this in-fighting. Can you see either of them settling for second place. With the Clintons in the mix...someone would actually be playing 3rd bananna.

Frankly, if I were Hillary, I would stay in the race just for spite because everyone keeps trying to force her out. "Screw 'em. If I'm going down, I'm taking you all with me!!"

Finn Kristiansen said..."There is no way she can win the nomination Simon. You would have to assume the superdelegates would give it to her, and that won't happen without certain mathematical impossibilities...."

That's exactly what's going to happen. "Hillary's path to the nomination is ... [to give the superdelegates] cover to do what they already want to do. The superdelegates don't want to give Obama the nomination - they want to win in the fall, and every week brings more evidence that the prevalent thinking in Clinton's camp ... [about Obama] is right. This being so, if Hillary can keep the race close, if she can continue to look like a viable contender and can get momentum on her side, then the superdelegates have cover to exercise their trustee function, giving the nomination to the candidate they already know is better-equipped to win. Put another way, they don't need to be sold, they just need to be shown the way to their wallet."

Truth be told, I'm giving serious consideration to getting a Hillary bumper sticker, at least for a couple of weeks leading up to the Indiana primary.

I'd scotch tape that sucker on. If the bumper sticker glue hangs on with anywhere near the tenacity of Hillary to the nomination race, you'll have to apply industrial solvents and then sandblast to remove it, or just get a new bumper altogether.

Dust Bunny -- I agree that Clinton has a better chance in the general election. Maybe the superdelegates also agree. However, nobody really knows. No one can know.

I didn't think Bill Clinton had a chance in hell in 1992 until it dawned on me the week after his convention speech that he was going to win. Also, sometimes it's not the candidate but the zeitgeist. Carter won because of the Watergate hangover. Any Democrat would have won.

Further, racially-charged social unrest is a very serious thing. Race in this country is a mess with all its baggage. It's also very serious to have a group of very loyal, reliable voters feel robbed.

I can't say for certain what will happen in November. The Democrats have a puncher's chance of winning both houses of Congress. The way the narrative is set up, everybody thinks that Obama has won fair and square. McCain is progressive on a lot of issues. For all these reasons, I would choose Obama if I were a Democratic superdelegate.

She will lose NC bad, he will win Oregon and she will likely win Indiana, Kentucky, and West Virginia and Puerto Rico.

Then they will go to the convention and Harold Ickes will run around like he did for Ted Kennedy during the Carter/Kennedy race. Finally it will be over and Obama will win the nomination and Hilary will have to go back to the senate and work with all of the senators that dissed her.

She's also broke which doesn't help.

It's not really going to change the delegate count though if she wins by 5 10 or 15. It just looks better is she wins big.

the main complaint from Democrat blogs was that it was not about policy -well ya but it seems like twenty of the previous debates were and they went something like-

I agree

what he said, plus I'll kiss your...

So guess what? Boring as hell plus ABC just followed what the candidates had been debating about through emissaries and proxies for weeks before...

I think event he candidates were/are bored with their own "issues"...

Whatever.

Does anyone want to hear more of the O-I'm Bambi defense?

I didn't think the Canadians would..

Bloggers are suppose to honor fund raisers being off the record.

That happened when I was eight!

God you gotta love that one-you can excuse anyone anything as long as it happened when you were eight.

Eight is the new naive.

Eight is the new kindergarten.

Has anyone read the write up on what Ayers did?

Ayers is one of only eleven of The Weathermen-that signed their "founding document"a Declaration of War Against the United States-

with this list of "accomplishments"-

* 7 October 1969 – The Haymarket Police Statue is bombed in Chicago, Illinois as a "kickoff" for the "Days of Rage" riots in the city October 8-11, 1969. No suspects are developed in this matter. The Weathermen later claimed credit for the bombing in their book "Prairie Fire".

* 13 February 1970 - Several police vehicles of the Berkeley, California, Police Department are bombed in the police parking lot.

* 16 February 1970 – A bomb is detonated at the Golden Gate Park branch of the San Francisco Police Department, killing one officer and injuring a number of other policemen. No organization claims credit for either bombing.

* 6 March 1970 – 34 sticks of dynamite are discovered in the 13th Police District of the Detroit, Michigan police bombing. During February and early March, 1970, members of the WUO, led by Bill Ayers, are reported to be in Detroit, during that period, for the purpose of bombing a police facility.

* 6 March 1970 – Another group blows themselves up when their "bomb factory" located in New York's Greenwich Village accidentally explodes. WUO members Theodore Gold, Diana Oughton, and Terry Robbins die in this accident. The bomb was intended to be planted at a non-commissioned officer's dance at Fort Dix, New Jersey. The bomb was packed with nails to inflict maximum casualties upon detonation.

* 30 March 1970 – Chicago Police discover a WUO "bomb factory" on Chicago’s north side. A subsequent discovery of a WUO "weapons cache" in a south side Chicago apartment several days later ends WUO activity in the city.

* 10 May 1970 – The National Guard Association building in Washington, D.C. was bombed to protest the National Guard killings of four students at Kent State in Ohio.

* 6 June 1970 – The WUO sends a letter claiming credit for bombing of the San Francisco Hall of Justice; however, no explosion actually took place. Months later, workmen in this building located an unexploded device which had apparently been dormant for some time.

* 9 June 1970 - The New York City Police headquarters is bombed by Jane Alpert and others in response to what Weathermen call "police repression."

* 27 July 1970 - The Presidio army base in San Francisco is bombed to mark the 11th anniversary of the Cuban Revolution. [NYT, 7/27/70]

* 29 August, 1971 - Bombing of the Office of California Prisons allegedly in retaliation for the killing of George Jackson. [LAT, 8/29/71]

* 17 September 1971 - The New York Department of Corrections in Albany, New York is bombed to protest the killing of 29 inmates at Attica State Penitentiary. [NYT, 9/18/71]

* 15 October 1971 - The bombing of William Bundy's office in the MIT research center. [NYT, 10/16/71]

* 19 May 1972 - Bombing of The Pentagon in retaliation for the new U.S. bombing raid in Hanoi. [NYT, 5/19/72]

* 18 May 1973 - The bombing of the 103rd Police Precinct in New York in response to the killing of 10-year-old black youth Clifford Glover by police.

* 28 September 1973 - The ITT headquarters in New York and Rome, Italy are bombed in response to ITT's alleged role in the Chilean coup earlier that month. [NYT, 9/28/73]

* 6 March 1974 - Bombing of the Dept. of Health, Education and Welfare offices in San Francisco to protest alleged sterilization of poor women. In the accompanying communiqué, the Women’s Brigade argues for "the need for women to take control of daycare, healthcare, birth control and other aspects of women's daily lives."

* 31 May 1974 - The Office of the California Attorney General is bombed in response to the killing of six members of the Symbionese Liberation Army.

* 17 June 1974 - Gulf Oil's Pittsburgh headquarters is bombed to protest its actions in Angola, Vietnam, and elsewhere.

* 11 September 1974 – Bombing of Anaconda Corporation (part of the Rockefeller Corporation) in retribution for Anaconda’s alleged involvement in the Chilean coup the previous year.

* 29 January 1975 - Bombing of the State Department in response to escalation in Vietnam. (AP. "State Department Rattled by Blast," The Daily Times-News, January 29 1975, p.1)

* 16 June 1975 - Weathermen bomb a Banco de Ponce (a Puerto Rican bank) in New York in solidarity with striking Puerto Rican cement workers.

* September, 1975 – Bombing of the Kennecott Corporation in retribution for Kennecott's alleged involvement in the Chilean coup two years prior.[37]

* October 20, 1981 - Brinks robbery in which Kathy Boudin and several members of the Weather Underground and the Black Liberation Army stole over $1 million from a Brinks armored car at the Nanuet Mall, near Nyack, New York on October 20, 1981. The robbers were stopped by police later that day and engaged them in a shootout, killing two police officers and one Brinks guard as well as wounding several others.

One of the worst goals of theirs being-

These initially included preparations for a bombing of a U.S. military non-commissioned officers' dance at Fort Dix, New Jersey in what Brian Flanagan said had been intended to be "the most horrific hit the United States government had ever suffered on its territory".

And then there is this quote via HuffingtonPost-

Ayers is a noted education specialist at the University of Illinois at Chicago. But to Fox News -- which has relentlessly been playing up Obama's associations with Ayers -- Ayers is an unrepentant terrorist. Obama made it seem like he barely knew him, though they both served on Chicago's Woods Fund board.

Guess what the problem is not FOX News- the question shouldn't be-What's the Matter with Kansas?

-it should be-

What the Hell is Wrong with in Chicago??

A guy with this "resume" -Ayers-is an education specialist at the University of Chicago and on a Board.

[That list is long-but remember Ayers wishes that he could have done MORE]

She stays in until all states vote if she has to carry every last one of them on her back. I know that scares some people that don't have the stomach for this sort of thing........people voting in a democracy.

And in what universe is the front-runner vastly outspending the opponent allowed to tell the other that they have to win by double digits? Why aren't you winning period, Jack? What's the fucking problem anyway? And their argument is that a large electoral rich bluish state crucial to win the general is (again) tailor made for Hillary? I feel like I just lost 10 IQ points typing that.

Seriously? You think that they would rather lose the election than piss off their black voters? I'm not being snarky. I'm trying to understand that mentality.

The explanation is simple: blacks comprise approximately 12% of voters at the national level and favor Democrats over Republicans by 9 to 1. This translates into a net gain of 9% of the popular vote for any Democratic candidate. The Democrats haven't won a Presidential race by more than 9% since the 60s, and don't usually win contested Congressional races by that big a margin either. In other words, Democrats can't win elections without the black vote.

If they run a damaged black candidate in 2008 they stand a good chance of losing THIS election. If they shove a black candidate out of the way to make way for a white candidate with fewer votes, though, they stand an excellent chance of losing not only the 2008 Presidential election, but the 2008 Senate and House elections, and probably the 2010 and 2012 elections as well.

The Democratic Party needs to kiss black ass to stay in power. It is really that simple.

"The Democratic Party needs to kiss black ass to stay in power. It is really that simple"

Ok.. That makes sense. Lose and whine and snivel for yet another 4 years (God knows they have plenty of practice) Keep beating the racial divide drum. Make sure your black voters don't get out from under your thumb and hope to win big in '12.

"You would have to assume the superdelegates would give it to her, and that won't happen without certain mathematical impossibilities (her someow leading in popular vote, voted delegates, state count)"

Or another scenario: Exit polls show Obama losing PA by about 5 points, then he actually ends up losing by 15-20. If that happens, expect a lot of the SDs to start looking for excuses to switch.

There's no proof of that happening. Indeed, the late breaking voters broke for Obama, according to the first wave of exit polls. If Clinton were still leading by 20 points in internal polls, they wouldn't be lowering expectations so much.

If they shove a black candidate out of the way to make way for a white candidate with fewer votes, though, they stand an excellent chance of losing not only the 2008 Presidential election, but the 2008 Senate and House elections, and probably the 2010 and 2012 elections as well.

Which is why Clinton's campaign is irrational. She is aware of the reality of the situation and she knows she isn't the black candidate in this race. Does she want the Democratic Party to lose, and, if so, why not run as a Republican?

It is only irrational if you assume she cares about the health of the Democratic Party. There's no reason to believe that she does, though.

Does she want the Democratic Party to lose, and, if so, why not run as a Republican?

If she doesn't get to run then, yes, she wants the Democratic candidate to lose -- or, at the worst, be a single-term President so that she can run again in 2016. Otherwise she's never going to get to be President.

Seven Machos said... Dust Bunny -- That one is easy. In terms of historical inequality and real collective and individual anger and actually having social unrest or losing voters, black trumps female by a country mile.

If you are a superdelegate and that is your criteria, you would go with Obama without question.

Unfortunately, you write that from the position of an affirmative action identity politics "judge" - not how pissed off democratic women, white ethnics, latinos patronized and patted on the head and lectured will be. About "what blacks want is all that matters, given their higher moral authority and level of victimhood".

You have blacks that vote 90-95% for any breathing democrat anyways in any election and dems always lose despite that unless they can convince white females and white ethnics and latins in adequate numbers to vote Democratic.

*****************Amazing how Obamabots seek to define the contest "anything less than 15% lead will not be a blowout by Hillary and she should get out." or, "Obama better win or angry blacks will pour into the street killing whites and burning cities and in the aftermath, the rest of America must kiss black ass and assuage their anger...."

Yeah, right, that is how the rest of the country will react to riots if Saint Obama is not annointed President...

***************Totally off topic, I saw a wonderful obscure movie last night that Titus would enjoy. "Age of Consent", filmed in 1968 where a fit, tanned James Mason is the persona of the famous Aussie artist Harold Lidsay (see "Sirens") who finds a muse to rekindle his artistic inspiration on the Great Barrier Reef - a young beach woman. Who was played the 24-year old gorgeous, voluptuous, graceful and athletic Helen Mirren in her 1st lead film role.The cinematography is incredible. It has comic absurd characters that detract a bit, but the colors are incredible, the near-naked to naked Cora Ryan (Mirren's character) even more so - watching it one feels semi-guilty about getting major wood watching an actress who had a brilliant later career, but unavoidable. And past Mirren's breathtaking physical beauty as a youth - you do see flashes of Jane Tennison and QE, QEII.And gays have Mason and two hunky beach boys to slaver over. The artistic theme is well done.

I think Ms. Clinton has a better chance in the general than Mr. Obama does at this point. The thing is though; from a long-term standpoint, it is better for the Democrats to loose with Obama than to loose with Clinton. Here is why.

If they loose with Obama, they can scream "racist Republicans" for the next 4 years. Ms. Clinto tries to run on the "first woman president" thing, but most folks arn't buying. There are too many other women with more accomplishments--who were not married to a president.

Would it be worse for down ticket races if the top of the ticket has the potential to down in McGovern-style flames but you keep a major voting block appeased, or to have the top of the ticket be at least competitive but tick off previously mentioned major voting block.

It is only irrational if you assume she cares about the health of the Democratic Party.

No. I assume she cares about winning if she gets to run, and your argument, which I took as my premise, was "[i]f they shove a black candidate out of the way to make way for a white candidate with fewer votes, though, they stand an excellent chance of losing not only the 2008 Presidential election, but the 2008 Senate and House elections, and probably the 2010 and 2012 elections as well." Why would she want to lose and then be responsible for superdelegate losses? She'd never get another chance and she'd have lost. That is irrational.

I think if Hillary stays in, Mort is going to punch her right in the face.

I think Bill Clinton is already doing that with his sporadic outbursts.

Cedar old man: where did you get the copy of "Age Of Consent"? Netflix doesn't carry and Amazon doesn't sell. I did see a copy of "Hussey (how much sex is enough...)" also starring a youthful Ms. Mirren.

Frankly, if I were Hillary, I would stay in the race just for spite because everyone keeps trying to force her out. "Screw 'em. If I'm going down, I'm taking you all with me!!"

I agree, Governor Huckabee.

The idea that black voters will shrug off a Clinton coronation is ridiculous

My prediction if Clinton wins: black voters stay home. The Howard Dean youth voters did not stick around to vote for that loser Kerry. Advantage: McCain

Mc Cain owns the strengths HRC claims. Hillary is a lightweight pretending to be a middleweight, trying to get a bout with a heavyweight. He just has to echo her themes from the primary for the general election.

Why would she want to lose and then be responsible for superdelegate losses?

Because a small chance of winning the Presidency is better than no chance of ever winning the Presidency. If Obama is elected and has a successful Presidency, Hillary will never, ever get to be President -- period. Again, let go of your supposition that she cares if the Democrats lose. The Clintons already caused two major disasters for their party (the '94 Congress and Gore's '00 loss) and Democrats still, somehow, idolize them.

Hillary needs to either win the nomination without alienating blacks (probably impossible at this point), or lose but cripple Obama for the 2008 race (entirely possible). If McCain wins he'll be a one-term President; he is too damned old for two terms. Hillary will be the obvious choice for nominee in 2012, Obama having lost what should have been an easy race for the Democrats, and she'll be running against 12 years of Republicans and war. That should be an easy win for her -- but it is only possible if Obama loses in 2008.

Basically, I agree that no matter what happens in PA tonight, Obama will get the nomination.

Though it would make his ticket stronger amongst Democrats, Clinton will never be his VP. I think we can all agree on that. There's too much bad blood there, and she won't take the caboose position, on principal.

So he needs to reach out to a neutral conservative VP candidate, who POSSIBLY may not have been in the running for President before (although I still think Richardson would be a great choice for him).

With McCain, anything is possible, all the other candidates are on the table, save Romney.

Laura Bush always said they couldn't convince Condi to run for the presidency, but you know, I think she would go for Veep, if courted.

Mortimer Brezny said..."The idea that black voters will shrug off a Clinton coronation is ridiculous."

Right, but it's not implausible that some Clinton supporters will be so aggreived at what the Obama camp does to secure his coronation that they'll do what some Republicans threaten to do vis-a-vis McCain: not to walk, but to stay home.

"Except that isn't what the Obama camp is saying, if you follow politics closely. They have memos released to the press, and they unequivocally do not say what you claim.

First, I said the Obama camp not the Obama campaign; I count his volunteers, sycophants and stronger supports under that banner as well as official staff, and what they write as much as what bears the campaign's sunset-logo seal. Second, to talk specifically of the Obama campaign (more specifically yet, the candidate), he's condescendingly told her that she can stay in the race as long as she likes, the way you might pat a slow child on the head.

No. I think it is impossible for Clinton to receive a majority of the pledged delegates, because Obama already has a majority of the pledged delegates.

It is possible that the superdelegates coronate Clinton, but even Clinton supporters say that would be very unlikely even if she wins the popular vote, and she requires far more superdelegates than Obama does to accomplish that.

Instead of twisting people's positions and quoting yourself as an evidence that you are right, you might try reading:

1. what the campaigns actually say to the press;2. what the actual uncommitted delegates say to the press; and 3. what the number totals are in terms of: a. pledged delegates b. states wonc. superdelegates announcedd. popular votes won, and e. money raised

A 6-point win is underwhelming for Clinton, by her own supporters' test, and that's what it's looking like she got. That just isn't a game changer. There is very little, if any, confusion about that, amongst Clinton's or Obama's camp.

No. I think it is impossible for Clinton to receive a majority of the pledged delegates, because Obama already has a majority of the pledged delegates.

To secure the nomination i.e. win, you need to have a simple majority of 4047 delegate votes. That equals 2025. I think this is where you're confused. "More" doesn't equal "majority", and if he did have a majority this would be over.

MadisonMan said..."The Democratic Party needs to kiss black ass to stay in power. It is really that simple. And the Republican Party has to kiss Anti-Abortion butt to stay in power. It is really that simple."

How is that even remotely comparable? It's perfectly legitimate for parties to cohere around issues.

And the Republican Party has to kiss Anti-Abortion butt to stay in power. It is really that simple.

Actually, the pro-choice vote is more important to the Democrats than the pro-life vote is to Republicans. For example, 69% of Democrats are pro-choice while only 62% of Republicans are pro-life; 73% of Democrats think Roe v. Wade is a good thing, while 55% of Republicans think it is a bad thing. On the whole, if abortion vanished from the political landscape tomorrow it would benefit Republicans more than Democrats. There is no demographic group that votes Republican as reliably as blacks vote for Democrats. Even the religious right is only about 3 to 1 in favor of Republicans.

The key thing, though, is that most of the voting blocs have to regularly have bones thrown to them to keep them happy -- anti-gay bills for the Christians, anti-trade bills for the unions, etc. Blacks, on the other hand, have thus far stuck with the Democrats despite the Democrats not doing shit for them. The last thing the Democrats want to do is actually have to start delivering for black voters, because they'll probably alienate a lot of their white voters in the process.

Blacks, on the other hand, have thus far stuck with the Democrats despite the Democrats not doing shit for them. The last thing the Democrats want to do is actually have to start delivering for black voters, because they'll probably alienate a lot of their white voters in the process.

Yes. Perhaps Clinton losing the black vote in the wake of her husband's race-baiting has more to do with black voters expecting the Democratic Party to start delivering for them on issues they care about than to do with black voters voting skin color because they are irrational animals, as Simon seems to imply.

First on Helen Mirren, I echo your sentiments. I just love her and she is not afraid to go naked at any age. Loved her in the Prime Suspect series (I think that's what they were called).

Now to your politics. I don't know that whites, ethnics, hispanics, would riot if Obama won. I mean, are there that many city-destroying riots by whites, not counting the way back times when whites rioted over unions or killing black people?

I don't really think blacks would "riot" either. But I know more than a few who would like to see a black president after this many years and would probably still go for Hillary if she had not been so condescending and racial about it (with Bill Clinton yesterday giving interviews again, going back to racial issues).

Some blacks will actually just blow it off and say "Whatevs". And a few who are more conservative, and were willing to give Obama, the first black man in over three hundreds years of blacks being here, a shot, will revert back to McCain (though this number is really very small).

Had Hillary conducted her campaign a little differently, we would not quite have this situation. But she has deliberately employed different "stun levels" on her phaser, trying variants on race, sex, and class, to attract the vote or polarize voters.

What I am hoping from this is that blacks will see from this that nobody should have 95% of one groups vote, 95% of the time. Seeing that a Democrat can be as underhanded against anyone should open their eyes to truly looking deeper at candidates from both parties.

Rev -- What's really interesting is that African-Americans, as a group of people with a shared subculture, are on the whole religious, not fond of abortion, very tough on crime, and for school choice. I suspect they don't like high taxes, either.

She is just as qualified or unqualified as Obama; neither has any real public policy accomplsihments to their name.

My hypothesis is that you can't run a Democrat for president who has "any real public policy accomplishment" because that's where the rubber meets the road and the Democrats uncover their fundamentally divided nature.

Democrats have two big constituencies: Government clients and government employees/contractors. There is a synergy, but in the end, they are at odds. Government employees and contractors need the clients and their problems to warrant press coverage that builds pressure for greater expenditures on behalf of those clients.

However, once that's decided, the employees and contractors need there to be an understanding that most of the money is really for them.

They achieve this understanding by being the major funders of most municipal and state campaigns. The deal is cut before the candidate even starts his or her campaign.

Later on, metrics are applied to new government programs, and they are always disappointing. Of course they are, since the government employees/contractors swiped most of the money! But for the politician, that means he or she has reached their ceiling.

The only way they can avoid this fate is to job-hop: Run for mayor, serve two busy years and get something passed, then run for governor before the disappointing results can be obtained. Repeat. The downside however is that you become known as a job-hopper, which diminishes your presidential timber.

The only way Democrats achieve something in the public policy arena is in a divided government scenario. The classic example is Bill Clinton's welfare reform, clearly good policy, but not according to party activists. Governors who have done things like that run into a buzz-saw of opposition when they try to advance. They are seen as triangulators or weak-assed compromisers.

Obama was smart. By creating this mythical idea of himself as a bridge builder, a consensus politician who transcends partisanship, he was able to avoid being vetted for accomplishments, because he tapped into the yearning to transcend partisanship in order to finally solve huge, hanging issues like Social Security and Iraq.

Only problem is, he can't back it up. He is the most partisan candidate remaining in the race, and that's coming out now. But his new, more accurate public image probably isn't going to prevent him from at least getting the nomination. Democrats want to feel hopeful. They want to think their ideas and fine sentiments add up to something. An experienced candidate can't tell them that -- too much mugging by reality. But a tyro like Obama, he can say it and mean it. The disappointment is at least postponed, and that's good enough for most Democrats.

Hillary is swimming upstream, but Democrats do understand that their candidate can be too far to the left. If that's what the result and polls show tonight, then she has good reason to stay in the race. The white/black/woman/man stuff is a factor, but the real question for the superdelegates is "who will help me and not hurt me get re-elected and/or keep my chairmanship?"

Perhaps Clinton losing the black vote in the wake of her husband's race-baiting has more to do with black voters expecting the Democratic Party to start delivering for them on issues they care about than to do with black voters voting skin color because they are irrational animals, as Simon seems to imply.

That's a remarkably stupid misinterpretation of Simon's remarks.

In any case it is silly to pretend that black support for Obama is based on either (a) his policies or (b) Clintonian "race-baiting". Obama's policies are all but indistinguishable from Hillary's, and Obama's overwhelming black support predates the earliest trumped-up attempts to accuse Clinton of race-baiting. Black voters are supporting Obama because he's black; it is as simple as that.

No, it doesn't. Prior to that, the debate was "Is he black enough?" and "Why don't blacks like Obama?" and Clinton had a clear majority in a raft of polls. You're factually incorrect. The switch happened in South Carolina and thereafter -- all after the media uproar concerning the MLK comments and so forth.

And by the way, I tuned in TCM last night and saw the Helen Mirren movie and was smitten. There is nothing better than a fair-skinned, voluptuous young woman with tan lines and her top removed. I quiver at the thought.

Then I switched to another channel and saw Ellen Page's movie prior to "Juno." In "Hard Candy," she plays a teenage girl bent on wreaking vengeance against a pedophile who might have murdered her friend. Harrowing but brilliant. As appealing as Page was in "Juno," she is that insane in "Hard Candy."

No, it isn't. That's all his comment can possibly mean. He directly states that Republicans are voting anti-abortion on an issue and black support for Obama is not issue-based. He has no proof of that whatsoever. Obama and Clinton most certainly are different on the issue of Iraq, which black voters care about a lot. You can try to rehabilitate Simon's racist comments all you want, but he's slandering black voters with his comment, and he has no evidence to back it up. It's just disgusting.

This year, we should split the 4047 delegates to 2025 and award the nomination to the candidate who has the majority of half of the majority. If we don't, blacks and college pukes will get mad and get hurt feelings and not vote for Democrats anymore. From that romance novel to hard exit poll data from MSNBC:

* Seventy-one percent of Pennsylvania Dems would be satisfied with Hillary as the nominee, while 64% would be satisfied with Obama.

* Six out of 10 Hillary backers would not be satisfied with Obama as the nominee, while only half of Obama backers would be dissatisfied with her as the nominee.

* In a startling finding, only 53% of Clinton supporters say they'd vote for Obama against McCain, while 69% of Obama backers would vote for her as the nominee.

You're factually incorrect. The switch happened in South Carolina and thereafter -- all after the media uproar concerning the MLK comments and so forth.

Obama won the overwhelming majority of the black vote in every contest, including the three held prior to South Carolina. Clinton had the lead among blacks in national polls early in the race, but that was just the name-recognition factor; her husband was enormously popular with blacks.

This will become more and more apparent to Americans as November draws closer.

I agree with Victoria. I'm already tired of the over the top political correctness. I can't imagine watching the country walking on eggshells for the next 4 years. We are already sick of being lectured about Global Warming, our light bulbs, our toilet paper, our food choices and now every innocent utterance must be filtered through what others might perceived as racist.

I honestly don't think Republicans will be playing the "ageist" card too often, Mort...

DBQ:

Before the South Carolina primary, I said to myself, hey white people love Obama. He seems not to spark any mention of his race, whether good or bad, amongst whites or blacks. Then Hillary Clinton and her supporters injected the first hint of race as an issue in this contest, ironically enough...and it's been downhill all the way.

In "Hard Candy," she plays a teenage girl bent on wreaking vengeance against a pedophile who might have murdered her friend. Harrowing but brilliant.

I agree; I was reluctant to watch the movie because of the subject matter, but her performance, and the effectiveness of the sting or caper the character sets up, I was riveted. Having seen her in that is why I went to "Juno."

This year, we should split the 4047 delegates to 2025 and award blah blah blah blah blah...

The point is only that Clinton can't overtake Obama. That's what newspapers mean when they write that superdelegates acknowledge that Obama has an insurmountable pledged delegate lead. That's a reality. Not a romance novel.

Obama won the overwhelming majority of the black vote in every contest, including the three held prior to South Carolina.

That's just silly. Obama won Iowa. He won an overwhelming majority, period. There are, like, two black people in Iowa. Yes, he won them, too.

New Hampshire and Nevada were so close that number of delegates was an even split. Neither state has a substantial black population, or anywhere near a significant black population. There's no reason to believe he won a statisically significant margin amongst those voters due to racial voting.

As for the nationwide polling, Clinton led amongst blacks up and until contact with South Carolina, due to the media firestorm over her comments that preceded South Carolina. That's when the flip happened. Not after Iowa. Certainly not during Iowa. Not during New Hampshire. Not after New Hampshire. Not during Nevada. Not after Nevada. But during the run up to South Carolina, when both Clintons made comments covered in the media as racially insensitive. There was a Drudge banner that read: "RACE WAR!!!!"

""If you are a superdelegate and that is your criteria, you would go with Obama without question."

Even if it meant that you would not be able to gather enough electoral votes to win the election and you knew it? Seriously? You think that they would rather lose the election than piss off their black voters?I'm not being snarky. I'm trying to understand that mentality."

People could certainly think that Obama has less of a chance head to head with McCain (I am not one of those). However, for those who think Obama can't win, they also can't possibly believe that Hillary could win, after alienating such a large portion of the normal Democratic base by having the superdelegates install her.

If you think Obama has no chance, then you have to say the Democrats have no chance. Thus, it would be whether they would want to lose with Obama and not turn away once-loyal Democrats for at least a few elections, or lose with Hillary and destroy the party for quite a while.

Indian Chief 'Two Eagles' was asked by a white government official, 'You have observed the white man for 90 years. You've seen his wars and his technological advances. You've seen his progress, and the damage he's done.' The Chief nodded in agreement. The official continued, 'Considering all these events, in your opinion, where did the white man go wrong?'

The Chief stared at the government official for over a minute and then calmly replied. 'When white man find land, Indians running it, no taxes, no debt, plenty buffalo, plenty beaver, clean water. Women did all the work, Medicine man free. Indian man spend all day hunting and fishing; all night having sex.'

Then the chief leaned back and smiled. 'Only white man dumb enough to think he could improve system like that.' Only black man dumb enough to think white man lives to give them all that..

One gets used to it from him. The other day he insisted that I wanted to call Obama the N word then acted all shocked at the idea that he might be calling me a racist. I guess he's lost his inhibitions.

Mort, re-read MM's comment. Then re-read mine. Repeat until comprehension is achieved. "Yawn. I say 'yawn' because when I actually yawn, you just don't get it."

Keep talking, Mort. Maybe if you repeat it often enough someone might believe it. Kind of you to provide a link to the exchange, since that saves me the bother of refuting your point.

Palladian said..."You're a racist! Yes, you!"

Indeed. Especially those of us who couldn't give two hoots about race. I read an account of the late Chief Justice that concluded that despite the best efforts of his critics to tag him with racism, the best assessment that can be made is that Rehnquist was basically indifferent to matters of race. I think he had the right idea. As I said last week, "[w]hat race relations still need in this country, as Sen. Moynihan put it, is a period of benign neglect. The rest of time should be an adequate period."

Perhaps we are forgetting one thing: Hillary! really REALLY wants to win.

Glenn Reynolds has cracked on her as the 'most uncompromising wartime US president in history.' Well, in a sense...she is the Churchill of her own self. If she only loved America (or Britain) like she loved herself...

Make your own substitutions into the "We shall fight on the beaches" speech for Obama, McCain, Bush, the parties, etc. But in essence:

She shall run on the beaches, she shall run on the landing grounds, she shall run in the fields and in the streets, she shall run in the hills; she shall never surrender.

Obama can lose this and walk away no weaker and maybe stronger, certainly with future prospects. Hillary! can't unless you presuppose a Gotterdammerung to blow up the DNC and shoot for '08. The Dems will fall in line for whoever is the nominee, that is what a machine does.

Or maybe a better comparison for HRC is the Terminator. You would have to shove her into a metal press, a steel crucible or a fusion explosion to finally stop her.

If she thought it would work, she would shoot Obama in the head on live TV to beat him.

In fact, I will take a leaf from the book of ten thousand BDS sufferers and suggest that plans exist to have him whacked, made ill or insane, arrested, caught in bed with a dead girl or a live boy or a chicken, or something final like that - probably killed, no doubt at the hands of someone who can be made to appear to be a Republican.

If she doesn't, we can safely assume it's because she or her Paglian nancy-boy staffers can't figure out a practical plan for same.

Besides, it would be easier to do this to the superdelegates and anyone else who can be pressured into voting for her. Depends on how many FBI files they kept copies of.

She will certainly never quit. Why should she? She has nothing to gain. What bone can Obama throw her? None.

Money? Anybody read her taxes? The Clintons have a hundred million bucks to splash around.

Delegates? Superdelegates? Don't bother her with math. Math is for mundanes and proles, she is of the elite. Rules? Yeah, right, whatever.

I continue to believe HRC will win the primary, if for no other reason, out of sheer willpower. She is drinking effing BOILERMAKERS in Indiana bars! That is one step short of gangbanging the night shift at the Chinook Mine. And if she held short of that, it is probably because the math says she would lose too many LGBT voters.

Toughness? Will to win? With all that I hold against her, that's got to be on her side. I guarantee you if Clinton and Obama were locked in a room, it would be she who walked out. Well, at least that's how I'd bet.

Losing to McCain is fine. She is still the presumptive nominee for 2012. If BO loses to McCain? She is four years older and BO is four years smarter.

No, it doesn't! Simon pretends that he doesn't even use the word nigger (elsewhere in the thread), just the very respectful and dignified "N-word". But there he is using the word "nigger". It's a total contradiction.

At this point in the election it is looking like Clinton by 8 points--Big winner: Imus! 8 points simply keeps the pundits in business and now they can claim that Indiana and NC are critical. Then Puerto Rico will be critical. And the superdelegates will still have to make a really hard choice--this situation is NOT going to resolve itself for them. I suspect the will be s**tting bricks all the way until Denver.My fearless prediction: a smoke free room in Denver will resolve it (has to be smoke free by law).

It's the way it's being wielded by Mortimer that's the disgusting part.

I honestly don't know what you mean.

But I do think the assertion that any black person who votes for Obama can't possibly be voting on the issues, made by someone who pretends he only uses the genteel "N word," yet is on record casually using the term "nigger" is racist. I don't think that's a stretch. Please explain to me how it is.

I read an account of the late Chief Justice that concluded that despite the best efforts of his critics to tag him with racism, the best assessment that can be made is that Rehnquist was basically indifferent to matters of race.

Actually, he advised Barry Goldwater to vote against the Civil Rights Act. That's a bit more than indifference, as it's advocating for a particular action with realworld consequences.

Just to be clear: I don't want you to feed me a cookie, Simon. You keep those fantasies to yourself.

In fact, I urged you to use the word nigger if you felt like it, and you refused because "the N word isn't merely a 'very nasty epithet' to be used interchangably with other epithets against a person whom one 'dislike[s].' It is freighted with its history, and so far as I know (at least when used as an insult) invariably carries racial overtones." Those are your words, Simon Dodd.

You simply slipped, and let the mask drop when you wrote: "Your claim was that I was itching to call Obama a nigger."

What you would have written if you stayed true to the principles you profess, you would have written "Your claim was that I was itching to call Obama the N word."

It's looking likely that Pennsylvania will end up exactly where I was hoping it would get to: a 10-point margin, and a 200,000 vote margin. It's 84% reporting and the margin has stayed at 10 for a while, though it had been 8 for a long time, and the current vote lead for Penn is over 190,000, so if she maintains that percent margin, once it's 100% reporting in the state, she'll have gotten exactly what she needs from it. This is the really significant thing, now that it's approaching 100% reporting, exactly where will this end up.

Hmm, just writing this, the popular vote in Pennsylvania goes up and down, even with the percentage victory staying the same. I don't understand how that works.

Christopher: Respectfully, I disagree with you; 10% isn't enough, 2-digits though it may be. It needed, and needs, to be at least some number of notches up in the right-hand column; thus my statement in a comment just a few back.

if she maintains that percent margin, once it's 100% reporting in the state, she'll have gotten exactly what she needs from it. This is the really significant thing, now that it's approaching 100% reporting, exactly where will this end up.

Christopher: Respectfully, I disagree with you; 10% isn't enough, 2-digits though it may be. It needed, and needs, to be at least some number of notches up in the right-hand column; thus my statement in a comment just a few back.

Ok, right now, she's over a 200,000 vote lead, and it's remaining a 10-point margin. Before this, his overal popular vote lead was 700,000, last I heard. But she beat him by 300,000 in Florida, so if she shrinks the "official" popular vote lead to under that, it'll be really important. Counting Florida, then, brought his lead to 400,000. Pennsylvania cuts that in half, then. And she is favored overall in the states left. The problem is, what if North Carolina cancels that out altogether?

By the way, is a bunch of college A&F guys the backdrop you want, if you're Obama and you just lost a state because of your inability to win working class voters? She's doing a better job selecting the people to put behind her; she makes a point of picking people who go against the stereotype of what kind of support she can get (mainly, she makes sure there are black people in the audience).

As if to prove the point of my 3:30 PM comment above, the NYT has a typically vacant editorial that could have been written at any time in the last seven weeks, and concedes the key points: Obama heavily outspent Clinton and was soundly rejected by Pennsylvania Democrats. The braying for her to leave the race would have come no matter what margin she won by, and I'm sure that she should be deeply concerned about what the editorial board of tomorrow's fish-wrapping material of record thinks about her campaign.

Mortimer: My opinion was independently reached; I did not see that editorial before stating it, nor did I read any editorial before reading it. I have yet to read this comment section; in fact, this was one of the , rarest, rarest of occasions in which I posted a comment (the original) without reading a single one prior. Obviously, I did read down from it, which explains my comment to Christopher.

I wouldn't have bothered posting this comment, either, except that I find it a bit annoying, so to speak, the way you "smushed" together two separate excerpts and citations and threw a sloppy dollop of whipped cream on top.

My opinion was independently reached; I did not see that editorial before stating it, nor did I read any editorial before reading it...

Wow. That wasn't my intention at all, to suggest your opinion had been changed. My point was that the New York Times editorial board, which endorsed Clinton, had changed its mind. I included your reply to Christopher because I disagree with you: that 10-point margin is enough to convince people that she's running a nasty, vicious campaign and it needs to stop.

The PA native in me must point out that Penn is a University in Philadelphia. No one in the Commonwealth says Penn. Maybe PA.

Bye Brooke. What a dreadful performance. She has just wilted under the pressure. What an uncomfortable-looking performer. Compare her (missing) stage presence to Carly! Jason was pretty bad too -- but I think Brooke is a goner. David A. belongs in the bottom 3 as well. I'm tired of the same thing week after week.

Carly rocked. But I wish there would have been Foxy Brown dancers accompanying her. I love that song from the movie.

Christopher is certainly right that this victory is significantly changing minds.

It's not just the win, but how she got it. Obama outspent her 3-1 and still got crushed with working class white voters. Worse, Obama got crushed with senior voters. Apparently slogans like "We are the ones weve been waiting for" only work up to age 45.

Well done, Mort! You finally put two and two together (10:38pm comment), even if you did pick yourself up and hurry on as if nothing had happened. My take on the dem primary has nothing todo with race.

Your assertion tonight was that black voters vote only on the basis of skin color and you have used the word nigger, despite your professed principle of never using it because it is "freighted with history." I concede you might be right that your womb envy outweighs your racism.

And he outspent her 2-to-1, because he doesn't bleed money like she does. That's not a plus for her, actually, as her campaign is premised on (nonexistent)executive competence.

This statement doesn't make sense. Obama is way ahead of Clinton in the money race becasue he raise a lot more money than her recently and spent tons of it in PA. Obama spent tons of money trying to get white working class voters.

This statement doesn't make sense. Obama is way ahead of Clinton in the money race becasue he raise a lot more money than her

And she raised a lot of money, too, she just wasted it. That's why she is self-financing. She is a poor manager. She wouldn't have a money disparity if she managed her money well. There have been numerous firings and NY Times articles on that point. So it does make sense, as it is the truth.

Mortimer Brezny said..."Your assertion tonight was that black voters vote only on the basis of skin color...."

Never asserted any such thing. As Rev noted (9:07 PM comment, above), you offered a "remarkably stupid misinterpretation of [my] remark[]" in my reply to MadisonMan. Readers can make up their own minds. I'm confident enough that they won't agree with you, and you may notice the lack of anyone jumping in to support your construction. Ooh, perhaps John Taylor may jump in to support you!

"[Y]ou have used the word n[ ], despite your professed principle of never using it...."

Used it because that was the claim made against me. Never made any disclaimer that I'd never use it, either: I said that Ann has forbidden it (9:52 PM comment, above), and subsequent to that, have desisted for any purpose (with the exception that in a comment above, I fogot to remove it from your comment that I was quoting).

I'm confident enough that they won't agree with you, and you may notice the lack of anyone jumping in to support your construction.

No one cares that you're a racist because you are powerless.

Used it because that was the claim made against me.

Except I never made that claim against you. I argued that if you felt like it, you should use it. Then you said you would never use it and then you went and used it and then you denied you used it and now you are saying that you only used it because it was used against you and you never said you wouldn't use it. You're right, Simon. I called you a nigger. That's what happened. And everyone believes you. Have a good night.

Look it was Obama that gave the media their marching orders to declare that the margin had to be ten.

She made ten but still we are believing the media driven pablum of -

She had to win by more than 10%.

Oh, crap. At least for my part, it doesn't have to do with media commentary.

No political candidate gives me marching orders. The media's not so good at that, either; not now, and not even when I was so employed. Is there *no* room for considering that individuals can analyze for themselves and come to personal conclusions and opinions? What's up that seeming lack of imagination?

And could there be dots which could be connected that might, possibly, supply some insight into the weird, in more than one respect, of this election season--now well over more than a year old, and weirdly elongated, to boot? And which is bringing into such sharp perspective the gap between buyers and sellers (not to mention between buyers and buyers, and between sellers and sellers)?

I normal times the super delegate idea was made exactly for this situation where it appears that an upstart democrat - Obama - who probably can't win in the general is about to win a squeaker pledged delegates. In come the super delegates to veto that choice to increase the chance for victory in November. The reality is that if Obama were white, the super delegates would now all be trending Clinton and the race would be over - Obama would lose momentum fast and he would be out. Except because Obama is black, taking it away from him would appear to be racism. Therefore, it won't happen, which is why the Democrats are in this pickle.

I didn't read every comment so this point might have already been made, but...

It's pretty insulting to assume that black people are so stubborn and ignorant that they would not vote with their party just because they didn't get "their guy."

In the end, they will vote for Hillary (if she ends up the nominee) because the thought of 4 more years of a Republican is too insane. I'm not black (I'm white), and while I have been saying for months that I would never vote for Hillary because I am an Obama supporter, I would reluctantly vote for her if she did end up the nominee because McCain is a horrible prospect.

I have to believe that the majority of Democratic voters (black white purple brown yellow) will vote with their party, regardless of who the nominee is, in this particular election because of the tragic past 8 years of Bush and the Republicans.

Characterizing black people as if they are mindless drones who only vote for the guy with the same skin color is ridiculous and shows how "out of touch" some of you Republicans are.

It's pretty insulting to assume that black people are so stubborn and ignorant that they would not vote with their party just because they didn't get "their guy."

If Obama wins the popular vote and the pledged delegates, but the Clintons persuade the superdelegates to select Hillary, then Obama voters are right to feel kicked in the teeth. And when somebody kicks you in the teeth, you don't rush to do them any favors.

For me, Obama offers change, while McCain offers experience. HRC offers neither. Further, because she has out-and-out lied about Obama during the campaign, I would really have to hold my nose to vote for her. The more I see her in action, the more she looks like Nixon in a pantsuit.

gee, wow, simon, mort, you both elevate the debate so much, with your whole exhaustive, and I mean exhaustive, treatment of the synonym for darky/dysphemism for Negro (SFD/DFN) which is of such concern to all humanity, and Martians too of they are lurking on this blog.

I think we are all in your debt and you should both be rewarded - with a night each with Titus.

The irony of Obama's "change" and his overwhelming support from black voters is that Obama isn't offering any change for black voters.

For example, black voters desperatly need cultural change to deal with the broken families and fatherless children that destroy their communites. Obama isn't offering any real change for these issues. He just gives the usual pep talk.

Moreover, Obama doesn't offer any change for the horrible urban school systems that plague America. Instead Obama just wants to continue on with the current system of failing schools controlled by teacher's unions. The real change proposed for these schools - vouchers - Obama opposes.

"The more I see her in action, the more she looks like Nixon in a pantsuit."

I know. She really is horrible. And I would feel kicked in the teeth if the Super D's switched over to her. But they would have to have some major justification other than "she's winning big states." Rules are rules...she can't catch him in regular delegates so I don't know what will happen when the last primary happens and neither of them are at 2025.

So then it goes to the convention and do people "vote" live on the floor? I've never seen a race like this and don't know how it works...do they (the Supers) have to justify their decision? Does someone like Howard Dean come out and make some explanatory speech?

i hope you don't think that I was directing that at you-i've had the cables going and have been scanning the supposed "CW" and it's weird is all.

10% of a large turn out is huge.

She just gained 200,000 plus in the popular vote.

She is most likely going to win West Virginia, Oregon, Indiana, Kentucky, Puerto Rico and maybe lose North Carolina by less than ten.

She has won New York, Massachusetts, New Jersey, California, Texas, Ohio and dare I say it Florida and somehow she sould just get out because the New York times and other vicuous commentators say it's getting too nasty for Obama...

She has a chance to eek out the popular vote.

Now all that said you have to give Obama credit-he learned the rules, he's sorta played by the rules, he's won the caucuses all but Nevada and he's raised a ton of money and has probably done better than expected with all of the ad buy in PA.

Some might argue that the margin will be less in Indiana because of the demographics but in Indiana time will not be on his side and the six weeks he had to plaster the airwaves in PA will only be two weeks in Indiana- therefore I think Hillary still wins it.

As for Oregon I don't see why the democrat pundits on CNN are automatically giving that to Obama..

So I could be wrong about her winning that.

I guess I just see the media muddling with this and it's infuriating and hell I was/am a Giuliani fan-I use to prefer Obama and a year ago if you told me there would be a candidate that I feared more than Hillary as the C-in-C I would have thought you were nuts.

So I guess that only proves I can be wrong as hell about even my own future opinion...

Zachary Paul Sire: I always find it funny when people making the argument that the superdelegates are obligated to vote for the person who has a pledged delegate lead say things like "rules are rules." Actually, those are not the rules. If you want it to be done by-the-books, then the superdelegates should vote based on personal preference alone. If your argument is that the superdelegates have a moral obligation to reinforce the pledged delegate lead, the logical basis of that would be that the rules aren't fair.

For example, black voters desperatly need cultural change to deal with the broken families and fatherless children that destroy their communites. Obama isn't offering any real change for these issues. He just gives the usual pep talk.

One man offers real change for broken families and fatherless children, but you have already dismissed him in your minds.

One man (in the words of James Baldwin) was able to do what generations of welfare workers and committees and resolutions and reports and housing projects and playgrounds have failed to do: to heal and redeem drunkards and junkies, to convert people who have come out of prison and to keep them out, to make men chaste and women virtuous, and to invest both the male and the female with pride and a serenity that hang about them like an unfailing light. He has done all these things, which our Christian church has spectacularly failed to do.

That man was the honorable Elijah Muhammad, whose successor as head of the Nation of Islam is Louis Farrakhan.

You have to be a nut if you fail to understand the argument that superdelegates going against the popular vote, states won, and pledged delegates will upset people. It will upset people. That's the argument.

You can't prevent people from getting upset by taunting them and cheering on your candidate who, by any metric other than the superdelegate vote, will have lost. And they will get even more upset that you are taunting them and pretending not to understand why they are upset. It certainly will not be funny for the Democratic Party in the future if Clinton "wins" in such circumstances, and the superdelegates, especially those who are elected officials, seem to recognize that. I have no idea why you'd want your candidate to win under conditions that would make half of her own party hate her.

My "rules are rules" remark was not in reference to how the Super Delegates vote. I was, perhaps inarticulately, reminding myself that whoever gets to 2025 wins. And if neither of them get there (and they won't) in pledged delegates, the significance of that magic number is then meaningless.

Super Delegates, as is my understanding, vote with their gut. I hate this system as it doesn't reflect the will of the people. It then becomes all about who is a better convincer (Hillary or Obama).

The only fair way would be for them to go with the candidate with the most popular votes, Obama or Hillary. Basing it on the simple majority of popular votes would be the only thing that would make sense and would be "fair."

But I do think the assertion that any black person who votes for Obama can't possibly be voting on the issues, made by someone who pretends he only uses the genteel "N word," yet is on record casually using the term "nigger" is racist. I don't think that's a stretch. Please explain to me how it is.

Mort is clearly a small, desperately unhappy person. But to the extent that he represents the bottom line of some Obama supporters against the other candidate in the Democratic primaries, the party has taken a really tragic turn. And then we have the other mental midget of recent threads, Former Law Student, claiming that Clinton's advantage in white turnout is tantamount to her "having the white racist vote locked up." This is chilling -- sickly so.

This kind of moral blackmail of the sensitive might get Obama over the top in this nomination process, but it doesn't help him win the presidency, and it will deeply damage the Democratic Party.

The righteous anger being directed at Hillary should be directed at Obama himself. He's the one who appeared to be something he was not. He's the one who raised the hopes of millions of Democrats, independents and even some Republicans that a truly unique leader had arrived. He painted a pretty picture of himself that has turned out to be false. He's not a bad guy, but he's an unexceptional partisan with no history of or sincere interest in a bipartisan approach. He was only able to get away with this scheme because he was basically unknown, giving him an advantage over his familiar opponents.

If Obama really was what he pretended to be, he'd have the nomination locked up already, and he'd be leading McCain in the polls by 15 points. But the facade is falling away, so the last resort of knuckle-draggers like Brezny and Former Law Student is to start flinging around the racism charge, against people who from everything we know are honorable and don't deserve it.

There's one word for this: Decadent. Where are the grownups in the Democratic Party who will finally call a halt to it?

That's just silly. Obama won Iowa. He won an overwhelming majority, period.

He "won" Iowa with 32% of the vote. That's not a majority, Mort. Back to remedial math with you.

New Hampshire and Nevada were so close that number of delegates was an even split. Neither state has a substantial black population, or anywhere near a significant black population.

He won the overwhelming majority of what black votes there were. The lack of a large black population is the reason the results were so close; had Nevada had a large black population, Obama would have won it in a landslide.